- From: <deborah.kaplan@suberic.net>
- Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2012 10:30:35 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)
- To: Peter <peterdev001@gmail.com>
- cc: duboisp2@gmail.com, Srinivasu Chakravarthula <srinivu@yahoo-inc.com>, Roger Hudson <rhudson@usability.com.au>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Peter wrote: > Also just as a side note, "screen reader" for example, may be a bit too specific considering the number of different > disabilities. In fact, using the text "screen reader" seems to end up encouraging the site developer to think that only people with screen readers need accessibility, which leads to them choosing to make that link hidden via CSS to anyone not using a screen reader, which then makes it unavailable to everyone else. But as others have said, it's better to avoid having the accessible version of your site, rather than a general version of your site with accessibility built-in. I'm trying to think of the website where the "accessible version" retains all the functionality of the regular version post-launch, and I can't. Once they are built, having to make features/content available in both versions of the site means that adding those features to the "accessible" version is always lost. The accessible Amazon site, accessible Web Outlook, etc. -- they are all less fully-featured than the standard versions. -Deborah
Received on Thursday, 16 February 2012 15:31:17 UTC